finality requirement in New Mexico

2021Under this construction of the finality rule, the magistrate court’s judgment for possession would not be immediately appealable because the magistrate court had yet to decide Plaintiff’s claim for damages, and the district court would consequently lack jurisdiction to decide Defendant’s de novo appeal. {24} However, this Court has recognized an exception to the “last act” construction of the finality rule “when the consequences of [an] order that is not the last contemplated order in [a] case are sufficiently severe that the aggrieved party should be granted a right to appeal to alleviate har

2021Under this construction of the finality rule, the magistrate court’s judgment for possession would not be immediately appealable because the magistrate court had yet to decide Plaintiff’s claim for damages, and the district court would consequently lack jurisdiction to decide Defendant’s de novo appeal. {24} However, this Court has recognized an exception to the “last act” construction of the finality rule “when the consequences of [an] order that is not the last contemplated order in [a] case are sufficiently severe that the aggrieved party should be granted a right to appeal to alleviate har

2016Henderson Constr., 2003- 3 NMCA-116, ¶¶ 6-8, 134 N.M. 364 , 76 P.3d 1121 (concluding that where the only 4 issue before the WCJ was whether the worker was entitled to the same six-month 5 periodic review that is statutorily granted to employers, the compensation order fully 6 disposed of all the issues that were before the WCJ, which resulted in a final, 7 appealable order); City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 1992-NMCA-038 , ¶¶ 8-9, 113 8 N.M. 721 , 832 P.2d 412 (concluding that where the only issue before the WCJ 9 concerned a change of health care providers, the order that fully disposed of tha

1992The doctrine must be narrowly construed, "`lest the exception swallow the basic finality requirement and swamp dockets with collateral order appeals.'" Maj. at 613, 845 P.2d at 136 (quoting 15A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3911.2, at 353 (2d ed. 1992)).

2016We rejected the state’s arguments for an exception to the finality rule based on practical finality because “[n]ot to limit the doctrine of practical finality would allow the exception to fast swallow the rule.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016We rejected the state’s arguments for an exception to the finality rule based on practical finality because “[n]ot to limit the doctrine of practical finality would allow the exception to fast swallow the rule.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023Fed’n of Tchrs.-TVI, 2005-NMCA-011, ¶ 16 , 136 N.M. 731 , 104 P.3d 1122 (noting that “[t]he exhaustion doctrine is closely related to the finality doctrine”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2006-NMSC-010, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 201 , 131 P.3d 51 .

2023Fed’n of Tchrs.-TVI, 2005-NMCA-011, ¶ 16 , 136 N.M. 731 , 104 P.3d 1122 (noting that “[t]he exhaustion doctrine is closely related to the finality doctrine”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2006-NMSC-010, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 201 , 131 P.3d 51 .

2023Fed’n of Tchrs.-TVI, 2005-NMCA-011, ¶ 16 , 136 N.M. 731 , 104 P.3d 1122 (noting that “[t]he exhaustion doctrine is closely related to the finality doctrine”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2006-NMSC-010, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 201 , 131 P.3d 51 .

2023Fed’n of Tchrs.-TVI, 2005-NMCA-011, ¶ 16 , 136 N.M. 731 , 104 P.3d 1122 (noting that “[t]he exhaustion doctrine is closely related to the finality doctrine”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2006-NMSC-010, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 201 , 131 P.3d 51 .

2016Henderson Constr., 2003- 3 NMCA-116, ¶¶ 6-8, 134 N.M. 364 , 76 P.3d 1121 (concluding that where the only 4 issue before the WCJ was whether the worker was entitled to the same six-month 5 periodic review that is statutorily granted to employers, the compensation order fully 6 disposed of all the issues that were before the WCJ, which resulted in a final, 7 appealable order); City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 1992-NMCA-038 , ¶¶ 8-9, 113 8 N.M. 721 , 832 P.2d 412 (concluding that where the only issue before the WCJ 9 concerned a change of health care providers, the order that fully disposed of tha

2016Henderson Constr., 2003- 3 NMCA-116, ¶¶ 6-8, 134 N.M. 364 , 76 P.3d 1121 (concluding that where the only 4 issue before the WCJ was whether the worker was entitled to the same six-month 5 periodic review that is statutorily granted to employers, the compensation order fully 6 disposed of all the issues that were before the WCJ, which resulted in a final, 7 appealable order); City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 1992-NMCA-038 , ¶¶ 8-9, 113 8 N.M. 721 , 832 P.2d 412 (concluding that where the only issue before the WCJ 9 concerned a change of health care providers, the order that fully disposed of tha

2016Henderson Constr., 2003- 3 NMCA-116, ¶¶ 6-8, 134 N.M. 364 , 76 P.3d 1121 (concluding that where the only 4 issue before the WCJ was whether the worker was entitled to the same six-month 5 periodic review that is statutorily granted to employers, the compensation order fully 6 disposed of all the issues that were before the WCJ, which resulted in a final, 7 appealable order); City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 1992-NMCA-038 , ¶¶ 8-9, 113 8 N.M. 721 , 832 P.2d 412 (concluding that where the only issue before the WCJ 9 concerned a change of health care providers, the order that fully disposed of tha

2009The purpose of the finality requirement before an appeal will lie is to “prevent piecemeal appeals or appeals of issues that may be moot after further proceedings in the lower court.” State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 441 , 121 P.3d 1040 .

2009The purpose of the finality requirement before an appeal will lie is to “prevent piecemeal appeals or appeals of issues that may be moot after further proceedings in the lower court.” State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 441 , 121 P.3d 1040 .

2000“The contempt finding, of itself, is not subject to appeal.” Id. {7} The foregoing recitation of the finality rule appears to be based on the much-quoted language that “‘an order or judgment is not considered final unless all issues of law and fact have been determined and the case disposed of by the trial court to the fullest extent possible.’ ” Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 236 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1038 (1992) (quoting B.L.

1999Cf. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 472 U.S. at 436 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 ("[T]he possibility that a ruling may be erroneous and may impose additional litigation expense is not sufficient to set aside the finality requirement....").

1997On the contrary, I would expect the Supreme Court to agree with the scholarly and thoughtful opinion of Judge Wald in Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, which noted that "courts commonly impose a finality requirement where statutes simply provide for judicial review of agency actions" and that "[n]othing in the legislative history of the APA suggests that a statute that simply states ... that any agency action is reviewable, has displaced the finality test." 711 F.2d at 285 n. 9.

1997On the contrary, I would expect the Supreme Court to agree with the scholarly and thoughtful opinion of Judge Wald in Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, which noted that "courts commonly impose a finality requirement where statutes simply provide for judicial review of agency actions" and that "[n]othing in the legislative history of the APA suggests that a statute that simply states ... that any agency action is reviewable, has displaced the finality test." 711 F.2d at 285 n. 9.

1992Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233-34 , 65 S.Ct. 631, 633-34 , 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945).

1992Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233-34 , 65 S.Ct. 631, 633-34 , 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945).

1922As is said in Lockhart v. Leeds, 12 N. M. 156, at page 162, 76 Pac. 312 , at page 314: “It (the judgment) is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissable matter which might have been offered for that purpose.

1904The party who has his day in court must make his entire showing.” In Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688 , the court said : “Thus it appears the bill exhibited all that was necessary to give to the court, sitting as a court of equity, complete jurisdiction over the subject of the controversy between the parties, and over all the equities now asserted by the complainant in his present suit.

1904The syllabus of the case prepared by the court is as follows: “Where a second action is presented upon the same claim and demand by the same parties, or their privies, the judgment is a finality as to the claim and demand in controversy concluding parties and privies, not only- as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, hut as to- every other matter Avhich might have been offered for that purpose.” Near the close of the opinion in that case, the court quotes approvingly from the case of Patteson v. Wold, 33 Fed. 791 , to the following effect: “All the gro